Category Archives: Fourth Amendment

EL MONTE POLICE OFFICER VIOLATES ARMY VETERAN #39;S FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHT
EL MONTE POLICE OFFICER VIOLATES AMY VETERAN #39;S FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHT. UNLAWFUL AND ILLEGAL SEARCH.

By: Wheel Dynaimcs

Link:
EL MONTE POLICE OFFICER VIOLATES ARMY VETERAN'S FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHT - Video

Philadelphia, PA (PRWEB) October 22, 2014

The Third Circuit in U.S. v. Katzin, 2014 U.S. Dist. WL 4851779 (3d Cir. Oct. 1, 2014), reversed its prior decision of the split three-judge panel and ruled that "...when the agents acted, they did so upon an objectively reasonable good-faith belief in the legality of their conduct, and that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule therefore applies."

In the Katzin case, suspecting the defendants of committing various burglaries, police, without a warrant, installed a GPS onto their van, leading to their apprehension. Almost two years later, the Supreme Court in U.S. v. Jones, 463 U.S. 354 (2012) ruled that this exact conduct needed a warrant. A three judge panel of the Third Circuit then held that the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant to install a GPS device on a suspects car. U.S. v. Katzin,732 F. 3d 187 (3d Cir. 2013). Prior to Jones, the Supreme Court had ruled that installing surveillance devices was not necessarily a Fourth Amendment violation. See U.S. v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984) and U.S. v. Knotts, 460 U.S. 276 (1983). The question before the en banc panel, therefore, was whether the police in Katzin were reasonably relying on these precedents to justify the legality of attaching the GPS device. The en banc panel in Katzin relied upon the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Davis v. U.S., 131 S.Ct. 2419 (2011), which held that the good faith exception applies when the police were reasonably relying on binding precedent. Prior to Jones, the Supreme Court had ruled that installing surveillance devices was not necessarily a Fourth Amendment violation.

Ms. Lefeber explains that the Katzin decision effectively eviscerates any Fourth Amendment protection because it creates a good-faith exception to the suppression of ill-gotten evidence.

Judge D. Brooks Smith, similarly, wrote in his dissent:

"The majority's good-faith analysis is flawed because it finds that, where the law is unsettled, law enforcement may engage in constitutionally reckless conduct and still reap the benefits of the good-faith exception. Fourth Amendment jurisprudence dictates a different outcome. When the law is unsettled, law enforcement should not travel the road of speculation, but rather they should demonstrate respect for the constitutional mandateobtain a warrant. Anything less would require suppression." Katzin, Ibid.

About Hope Lefeber:

In practice since 1979, Lefeber is an experienced and aggressive criminal defense attorney in Philadelphia. As a former Enforcement Attorney for the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission, Lefeber uses the knowledge she gained while working for the government to best defend her clients facing serious state and federal charges related to drug offenses and white collar crime, including business and corporate fraud, mail and wire fraud, money laundering, financial and securities fraud, and tax fraud. A member of the invitation-only National Trial Lawyers Top 100, Lefeber has been recognized by Thomson Reuters as a 2014 Super Lawyer. She has represented high-profile clients, published numerous articles, lectured on federal criminal law issues, taught Continuing Legal Education classes to other Philadelphia criminal defense attorneys and has been quoted by various media outlets, from TV news to print publications.

Learn more at http://www.hopelefeber.com/

More:
Third Circuit Allows Evidence from Warrantless GPS Device

Supreme Court oral arguments Heien v North Carolina
The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments regarding our fourth amendment in the case of Heien v. North Carolina. Listen to the case yourself.

By: DailyWorldwideNews

Read more:
Supreme Court oral arguments Heien v North Carolina - Video

Your computer, phone, and other digital devices hold vast amounts of personal information about you and your family. This sensitive data is worth protecting from prying eyes, including those of the government.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects you from unreasonable government searches and seizures, and this protection extends to your computer and portable devices. But how does this work in the real world? What should you do if the police or other law enforcement officers show up at your door and want to search your computer?

EFF has designed this guide to help you understand your rights if officers try to search the data stored on your computer or portable electronic device, or seize it for further examination somewhere else. Keep in mind that the Fourth Amendment is the minimum standard, and your specific state may have stronger protections.

Because anything you say can be used against you in a criminal or civil case, before speaking to any law enforcement official, you should consult with an attorney. Remember generally the fact that you assert your rights cannot legally be used against you in court. You can always state: "I do not want to talk to you or answer any questions without my attorney present." If they continue to ask you questions after that point, you can say: "Please don't ask me any further questions until my attorney is present." And if the police violate your rights and conduct an illegal search, often the evidence they obtain as a result of that search can't be used against you.

We've organized this guide into three sections:

If you consent to a search, the police don't need a warrant.

The most frequent ways police are able to search is by asking you for permission. If you say "yes" and consent to the search, then police don't need a warrant. You can limit the scope of that consent and even revoke or take it back after the officers begin searching, but by then it may be too late.1 That's why it's better not consent to a searchpolice may drop the matter. If not, then they will generally need to get a search warrant to search.

Law enforcement may show up at your door. Apart from a few exceptions, police need a warrant to enter your home.

The police can't simply enter your home to search it or any electronic device inside, like a laptop or cell phone, without a warrant.

See original here:
When Can the Police Search Your Phone and Computer?

The Supreme Court is weighing in on another Fourth Amendment privacy case, this one concerning a Los Angeles ordinance requiring hotels to surrender guest registries to the police upon request without a warrant.

Thejustices agreed(PDF) Monday to hear Los Angeles' appeal of a lower court that ruled7-4 that the lawmeant to combat prostitution, gambling, and even terrorismwas unconstitutional. The law(PDF) requires hotels to provide the informationincluding guests' credit card number, home address, driver's license information, and vehicle license numberat a moment's notice. Several dozen cities, from Atlanta to Seattle, have similar ordinances.

"The Supreme Court will consider both the scope of privacy protections for hotel guests and also whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits laws that allow unlawful searches," EPIC wrote. "The second issue has far-reaching consequences because many recent laws authorize the police searches without judicial review. Thus far, courts have only considered "as applied" challenges on a case-by-case basis."

The appeal is the third high-profile Fourth Amendment case the justices have taken in three years.

In 2012, the justices ruled that authorities generally need search warrants when they affix GPS devices to a vehicle. And earlier this year, the Supreme Court said that the authorities need warrants to peek into the mobile phones of suspects they arrest.

In the latest case,Los Angeles motel owners sued, claiming that the law was a violation of their rights. The 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the motel owners in December and said the only documentsthey must disclose include a hotel's proprietary pricing and occupancy information.

Businesses do not ordinarily disclose, and are not expected to disclose, the kind of commercially sensitive information contained in the records, Judge Paul Watford wrote for the majority. He said a hotel has "the right to exclude others from prying into the contents of its records."

In dissent, Judge Richard Clifton wrote that neither the hotel nor the guest has an expectation of privacy."A guest's information is even less personal to the hotel than it is to the guest," Clifton said.

In arguing to the justices that they should review the majority's conclusion, Los Angeles city officials wrote(PDF), "These laws expressly help police investigate crimes such as prostitution and gambling, capture dangerous fugitives and even authorize federal law enforcement to examine these registers, an authorization which can be vital in the immediate aftermath of a homeland terrorist attack."

Thehigh court did not set a hearing date.

Original post:
Supreme Court to decide if cops can access hotel registries without warrants

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.

Legal scholars and courts have been wrangling for more than a year over whether the National Security Agencys collection of millions of Americans phone records a program first disclosed to the public by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden in 2013 violates those protections. Some legal experts disagree over whether the record collection even qualifies as a search or seizure, and, if it does, whether collecting those records is unreasonable or requires a warrant.

In a recent Intelligence Squared U.S. debate, two teams of constitutional law experts faced off on the motion Mass Collection of U.S. Phone Records Violates The Fourth Amendment. In these Oxford-style debates, the team that sways the most people to its side by the end is the winner.

Todays Question: Does the mass collection of phone records violate the Fourth Amendment?

More:
Does the mass collection of phone records violate the Fourth Amendment?

John Yoo, a former lawyer with the U.S. Department of Justice, argues that the NSA's phone records surveillance program is constitutional. Jeff Fusco /Intelligence Squared U.S. hide caption

John Yoo, a former lawyer with the U.S. Department of Justice, argues that the NSA's phone records surveillance program is constitutional.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."

Legal scholars and courts have been wrangling for more than a year over whether the National Security Agency's collection of millions of Americans' phone records a program first disclosed to the public by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden in 2013 violates those protections. Some legal experts disagree over whether the record collection even qualifies as a search or seizure, and, if it does, whether collecting those records is "unreasonable" or requires a warrant.

In a recent Intelligence Squared U.S. debate, two teams of constitutional law experts faced off on the motion "Mass Collection of U.S. Phone Records Violates The Fourth Amendment." In these Oxford-style debates, the team that sways the most people to its side by the end is the winner.

Before the debate, the audience at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia voted 46 percent in favor of the motion and 17 percent against, with 37 percent undecided. After the debate, 66 percent agreed with the motion and 28 percent were opposed. That made the team arguing in favor of the motion the winner of the debate.

Those debating:

FOR THE MOTION

The Constitutional Accountability Center's Elizabeth Wydra, with teammate Alex Abdo of the ACLU, argues that collecting data that can reveal "deeply private information" without suspicion of wrongdoing violates the Fourth Amendment. Jeff Fusco/Intelligence Squared U.S. hide caption

The Constitutional Accountability Center's Elizabeth Wydra, with teammate Alex Abdo of the ACLU, argues that collecting data that can reveal "deeply private information" without suspicion of wrongdoing violates the Fourth Amendment.

Read the original:
Debate: Does Mass Phone Data Collection Violate The 4th Amendment?

Montgomery County Executive Isiah Leggett said Tuesday the county will not comply with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement civil detainer requests, unless there is adequate probable cause under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Leggetts statement comes on the heels of an identical directive from Gov. Martin J. OMalley to the Public Safety and Correctional Services Secretary Gregg Hershberger for a state-run jail in Baltimore, and advice from the Attorney Generals Office that without probable cause, continued detention likely violates the constitution.

Immigration detainers are notices to local law enforcement agencies that ICE intends to assume custody of an individual being held locally. Detainers not only notify local law enforcement that ICE means to take a person into custody once they are no longer subject to local detention, detainers also request the local agency hold individuals for up to 48 hours after their scheduled release to provide ICE time to take custody, according to http://www.ice.gov.

According to a news release from the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland, federal courts have found that detention on the sole basis of an immigration detainer request violates the Fourth Amendment. Three federal courts have found that such detention raises constitutional concerns and that counties are liable in damages to the individuals they detain on that basis, according to the release.

In August, Adam D. Snyder, chief counsel, Opinions & Advice for the Maryland Attorney Generals Office, reached a similar conclusion finding that an ICE detainer alone does not mandate or authorize the continued detention of someone beyond when they would be released under state law.

Thus, if a local law enforcement officer does not have probable cause to extend custody over the subject of an ICE detainer, the continued detention likely constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment, he wrote in a letter of advice to Washington County Sheriff Douglas W. Mullendore.

In June, the ACLU of Maryland urged all counties in the state to stop complying with the detainer requests. Councilwoman Nancy Navarro requested in September that Leggett conform county policy to match the OMalleys recent directive on the issue.

In her request, Navarro (D-Dist. 4) of Silver Spring said she understood from Arthur Wallenstein, director of the County Department of Correction and Rehabilitation, that the practice locally was to contact ICE when there is a detainer in the system and the individual is available, even if local matters are concluded.

My understanding is that Montgomery Countys policy for responding to ICE civil detainer requests may be inconsistent with [state policy], Navarro wrote.

Wallenstein was not able to be reached Tuesday for comment.

Continued here:
Montgomery County will not hold immigrants without probable cause -- Gazette.Net

Secure remote control for conventional and virtual desktops

A US District Court has shot down a motion to toss out the government's evidence against alleged Silk Road mastermind Ross Ulbricht, ruling that the FBI's investigation did not violate Ulbricht's Fourth Amendment rights.

In a 38-page ruling, District Judge Katherine Forrest wrote that the defense could not exclude evidence gathered from the Icelandic server that hosted the Silk Road darknet service, rejecting Ulbricht's attorneys' argument that the probe was conducted illegally.

The order, in large part, sides with the arguments put forward by the prosecutors in the case.

Ulbricht's lawyers had argued that the FBI's search of the server, which was carried out without a warrant, violated Ulbricht's Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. Judge Forrest, however, ruled that the Fourth Amendment did not apply in Ulbricht's case.

In particular, the judge noted that Ulbricht had failed to establish that he had a "personal privacy interest" in the server. Had he submitted a sworn statement asserting such interest, she observed, it could not have been admitted as evidence of his guilt during his trial, although it could have been used to poke holes in his testimony should he take the witness stand.

Ulbricht has offered no such statement, however, presumably to keep his story straight: he denies being the operator of Silk Road. But if he doesn't come forward and say the server is his, Judge Forrest said, he can't establish that he has a personal privacy interest in it and absent the expectation of privacy, he can't claim Fourth Amendment protection.

"Here, the Court does not know whether Ulbricht made a tactical choice because he is as they say between a rock and a hard place, or because he truly has no personal privacy interest in the servers at issue," the judge wrote. "It is clear, however, that this Court may not proceed with a Fourth Amendment analysis in the absence of the requisite interest."

The information gathered from the search of the Icelandic server was later used to issue warrants within the US to gather information in the investigation leading up to Ulbricht's arrest on drug and conspiracy charges. Judge Forrest acknowledged that had the defense prevailed, virtually all of the evidence pinning Ulbricht as the head of Silk Road would have been excluded.

As it is, the judge declined Ulbricht's lawyers' motion to suppress the evidence against him and his case will move forward, with his trial due to begin in November.

See the rest here:
Judge nukes Ulbricht's complaint about WARRANTLESS FBI Silk Road server raid

The Fourth Amendment- The Maininator Period 4
This video is about The Fourth Amendment.

By: Connor O #39;Neal

See the original post:
The Fourth Amendment- The Maininator Period 4 - Video